Share this story

On Friday afternoon, an influential group representing conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives released a shockingly sensible memo calling for sweeping reforms of the nation's copyright laws. But less than 24 hours later, the group's executive director, Paul Teller, issued a statement saying he was recalling the memo because it had been "published without adequate review."

The Republican Study Committee is a caucus consisting of more than 160 conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives—a majority of that party's House members. It acts as an internal think tank for the group, developing policy proposals and providing intellectual support for conservative positions. Hence, an RSC endorsement of sweeping reforms to the nation's copyright laws would be a watershed moment in the national copyright debate.

The memo, titled "Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it," is a direct assault on the relentlessly pro-copyright worldview dominating Washington for decades. "Most legislative discussions on this topic are not premised upon what is in the public good or what will promote the most productivity and innovation, but rather what the content creators 'deserve' or are 'entitled to' by virtue of their creation," the memo says. That's a problem, it argues, because the Constitution says the point of copyright is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"—not merely to line the pockets of incumbent copyright holders.

The memo also contends "copyright violates nearly every tenet of laissez-faire capitalism," granting content producers a "guaranteed, government instituted, government subsidized content monopoly." Excessive copyright protection, it claims, "leads to what economists call 'rent-seeking' which is effectively non-productive behavior that sucks economic productivity and potential from the overall economy."

The memo concludes with policy recommendations, and it reads like a copyright reformer's wish list. It calls for reducing statutory damages, which under current law can go as high as $150,000 per infringement. It advocates expanded fair use and penalties for false copyright claims. And it proposes a complex new scheme for copyright renewals that would reduce the maximum term of copyright to 46 years. Under current law, copyright protection for individual authors lasts for the life of the author plus another 70 years.

Generation gap

How did such a sensible document emerge from one of the most powerful groups on Capitol Hill? The memo was authored by a young Republican Study Committee staffer, Derek Khanna. Khanna has been active in Republican politics since high school. He studied the Middle East, political science, and history at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and, after graduation, he landed a job working for Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA). In January, he shifted to the Republican Study Committee, where he has focused on cyber-security, homeland security, and government oversight.

Khanna has exactly the kind of resume you'd expect for someone with tech-savvy views on copyright law. He lists "C++, Backtrack, Python, Sql, Java, Dreamweaver/Photoshop, statistical modeling," as interests, as well as "building computers and beta testing software." Best of all, Khanna tells us that he's an "avid reader" of Ars Technica.

The significance of Khanna's memo is best understood in the light of January's defeat of the Stop Online Piracy Act. As we pointed out shortly after SOPA's defeat, Hollywood long enjoyed closer ties to Democrats than Republicans. And that greater affinity was reflected in the asymmetrical reaction to the SOPA protests. Republican members of Congress who had co-sponsored SOPA (or its Senate companion, the Protect IP Act) quickly withdrew as sponsors. But most Democratic co-sponsors remained stalwart Hollywood allies, refusing to renounce the legislation.

The defeat of SOPA was overwhelmingly the work of Khanna's generation. Thousands of youthful redditors and Wikipedians called their representatives in Congress. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)—who is no spring chicken himself but boasts an army of youthful supporters—was one of the first Republicans to declare his opposition to SOPA.

But if the release of the RSC memo on Friday signaled a continued interest in copyright reform among young Republicans, the older generation reasserted its authority Saturday afternoon. "We at the RSC take pride in providing informative analysis of major policy issues and pending legislation that accounts for the range of perspectives held by RSC Members and within the conservative community," RSC executive director Paul Teller wrote in an e-mail to RSC members. "Yesterday you received a Policy Brief on copyright law that was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to meet that standard. Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand."

Lobbyist pressure

"The RSC issues a lot of memos," a source with knowledge of the RSC's operations told Ars. "They're a small shop" with a lot of issues on their plate. Our source didn't think the memo reflected a sea change in the views of Republican members of Congress. But he said the fact Khanna was able to get his memo through the RSC's vetting process suggested there was sympathy for his views at least within the RSC staff.

The source told us content industry lobbyists exerted pressure on RSC leadership to repudiate the memo.

Khanna's memo has received widespread (and overwhelmingly positive) attention from the tech blogosphere. And our source suggested that could cause Republicans to take a second look at Khanna's ideas. "Republicans may see this as an indication that there's something to be gained by working on this issue," he told us.

Other observers agree. "Embracing Internet culture and copyright reform may be one of the easiest things we can do to win over young voters," tweeted Patrick Ruffini, a prominent Republican operative. And the primary downside would be alienating Hollywood, an interest group that has never cared much for Republicans anyway.

Update: A spokesman for the RSC comments:

On issues where there are several different perspectives among our members, our Policy Briefs should reflect that. This Policy Brief presented one view among conservatives on U.S. copyright law. Due to an oversight in our review process, it did not account for the full range of perspectives among our members. It was removed from the website to address that concern.

I know some want to point fingers elsewhere, but the simple fact is that we screwed up, we admitted it, and we hope people will now use this opportunity to engage in polite and serious discussion of copyright law.

Promoted Comments

The reality is that, despite the seeming consensus of places like Ars and Reddit, the Republican party isn't a big homogeneous group of (insert derisive, possibly bigoted stereotype here). There are very large groups that differ from the general party position on "core" issues. This is not new, and isn't unique to the Republicans. In a two party system, this is reality, and painting them all with the same big brush may be convenient for your raging internet forum comment, but it's just intellectual laziness. Heck, even within the smaller movements, such as the Tea Party, people involved can have wildly disparate positions on many issues.

However, whether it's an age gap, as the author speculates, or money, or a simple reluctance to change, seeing some of these viewpoints represented on a leadership level is a challenge. (and again, not just for Republicans.)

120 Reader Comments

Who was the last US president who wasn't a millionaire by the way? Could you imagine a president of the US living like this guy?

From what I observe of the US, your presidents need to be good looking and wealthy. They need to look like game show hosts, slick and with all the answers. It seems to be a feedback loop - voters respond to people who look good and speak clearly and the parties put people up who appeal to voters first and foremost.

Imagine the best presidents of history. They would not stand a chance in today's elections.

Doesn't matter, it isn't the president (or anyone elected) who has the power anyway.

It was always going to be pulled. You don't annoy the media. The media is what gets you elected. You don't want to be a candidate getting the Gary Johnson or Jill Stein treatment, because then you're out of a job.

I'm in the enviable (if you look on the positive side) position of having Austin Scott (Ga-8) as my outgoing representative, and Paul 'Earth is 9000 years old' Broun (Ga-10) as my Congressman come Jan (don't you love redistricting). I'm going to contact them both and let them know they NEED to support this.

With all the coverage of the presidential elections IT tools and this story I become very well educated on the US political system, but I have to ask some more questions:

Is it quite common to not only know exactly who represents you in Senat and Congress but also contact them and let them know how they should represent you? As a European I am not very familiar with the ways of political involvement in the States, but I find this a very compelling idea. The voter actually being in touch with the representative, maybe even communicating directly and meaningfully. Sounds much better that what we do here in Europe in respect to talking to our politicians, it's certainly not part of the political culture in my home.

Back OT: I think politicians all over the world start to realize that the current copyright laws are not in line with general society's consensus. I guess that's why you are seeing such a memo in the States and that's why we are seeing parties like the Pirate Party emerge in Europe. It will be a slow process as the opposing forces are quite strong but I am sure we will see adaptions to the copyright laws being made. It may even become an election winning topic sooner or later.

Who was the last US president who wasn't a millionaire by the way? Could you imagine a president of the US living like this guy?

From what I observe of the US, your presidents need to be good looking and wealthy. They need to look like game show hosts, slick and with all the answers. It seems to be a feedback loop - voters respond to people who look good and speak clearly and the parties put people up who appeal to voters first and foremost.

Imagine the best presidents of history. They would not stand a chance in today's elections.

Yep. The President is the Prime Minister and the head of state all rolled into one. It's a problem.

I'm pretty sure the old play-ground-saying of "takes one to know one" sums up your comments but someone else said it much more elegantly. just take a look at the Jcool post.

That was an old saying on the ground at plays? Where did you find it?

Quote:

I mean using insults, obviously insulting someone with language like this, is worse then the party you are insulting.

I think there are Idea's with in the Republican party for change and prosperity, but they're not tried, and it becomes politically hard to sell something that is a radical change.

You think that there is a "with" owned by someone or something important named Idea in the Republican party for change and prosperity, but who is not tried? What does the last part have to do with the rest? No matter, the first part of the sentence is very intriguing. Could you elaborate more on this Idea person and how they came to own a "with" ?

I don't agree with you, though. I mean, has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? What do you have to say to that? I doubt that you can even be as far as to think as to respond.

The reality is that, despite the seeming consensus of places like Ars and Reddit, the Republican party isn't a big homogeneous group of (insert derisive, possibly bigoted stereotype here).

While I understand your position, and actually agree with it, why are those diverse Republican views never represented here? Why does it seem when a Republican voice is raised here, it's one that reflects the stereotype?

The reality is that, despite the seeming consensus of places like Ars and Reddit, the Republican party isn't a big homogeneous group of (insert derisive, possibly bigoted stereotype here).

While I understand your position, and actually agree with it, why are those diverse Republican views never represented here? Why does it seem when a Republican voice is raised here, it's one that reflects the stereotype?

Pulling the memo reveals republicans for what they are: fair weather friends of the Constitution. The paper was correct that copyright law has been grievously perverted from its constitutional purpose. However, rather than siding with the constitution (even when it's hard, and could cost you support from wealthy backers), the republicans immediately retreat and side with their rich friends. One would think that the billions they received in this last campaign, and the fact that they couldn't win even with mountains of cash to throw at campaigning, would sober them up and help them remember that they need votes, and not just money, to win.

If the republicans did actually go internet friendly and copyright sensible I'd have a heck of a time figuring out who to vote for. For now it is easy, both sides are terrible on internet issues, and pretty much everything else, so the choice is simply made on social issues. I believe society should be permissive, so I vote democrat.

But such a change would force me to reconsider. Social issues are important, but rarely legislated. They are mostly payed lip service to for the purposes of drumming up votes. Substantive copyright reform might be worth holding my nose and giving a tacit pass to a party with a long history of racism, sexism, and homophobia.

The reality is that, despite the seeming consensus of places like Ars and Reddit, the Republican party isn't a big homogeneous group of (insert derisive, possibly bigoted stereotype here). There are very large groups that differ from the general party position on "core" issues. This is not new, and isn't unique to the Republicans. In a two party system, this is reality, and painting them all with the same big brush may be convenient for your raging internet forum comment, but it's just intellectual laziness.

Painting them all with the same brush is exactly why they assemble themselves under a unified banner and state "this is what we believe." People don't choose to be black or white or asian, but they do choose their political affiliations, and they are responsible for the policy positions they help to support - regardless of whether they approve of all of those positions themselves.

Regardless of whether any particular republican hates gays, poor people, or non-christians, s/he tacitly approves these things by registering republican, and voting for republican candidates. Up until the tea party, the GOP did a remarkably good job of presenting a unified front on issues, and even still does a better job of it than the democrats.

If it makes you feel better, simply substitute "the republican party" in place of "republicans" whenever somebody makes a "generalization" that you take offense to.

As a person who has always voted democrat, I accept my culpability in the utterly absurd intellectual property stances taken by the democratic party, at least as perpetrated by the president. Fortunately my senator and congressman are sane on the issue, so my culpability is somewhat less than that of most democrats.

If you vote republican, you need to accept your culpability for the bad things republicans do. You don't get to vote for somebody, knowing their positions in advance, and then claim not to be associated with what they do. Maybe you think the good outweighs the bad, fine, say that, but don't pretend innocence.

The reality is that, despite the seeming consensus of places like Ars and Reddit, the Republican party isn't a big homogeneous group of (insert derisive, possibly bigoted stereotype here). There are very large groups that differ from the general party position on "core" issues. This is not new, and isn't unique to the Republicans. In a two party system, this is reality, and painting them all with the same big brush may be convenient for your raging internet forum comment, but it's just intellectual laziness. Heck, even within the smaller movements, such as the Tea Party, people involved can have wildly disparate positions on many issues.

However, whether it's an age gap, as the author speculates, or money, or a simple reluctance to change, seeing some of these viewpoints represented on a leadership level is a challenge. (and again, not just for Republicans.)

In all seriousness: I voted Stein; I'd have probably voted Obama if I lived in a swing state. (I'd have probably voted Johnson if not for his batshit-fucking-insane proposals like eliminating the Department of Education.)

Whether or not you agree with the notion of a lesser-evil party, it's the conventional wisdom and it has a great deal of power.

Generally speaking, I would say the Republicans, while a disparate group, are more disciplined and more likely to act with unity than the Democrats. The Democrats are the party that usually backs down and offers "compromises" which result in, for example, Boehner saying "We got 98% of what we wanted."

In this case, however, the Republicans are tripping all over themselves to take back a firm stand on an important issue, at the behest of Hollywood lobbyists.

I guess they figured that if they wanted to win elections, maybe they should start acting like Democrats.

I think making the assumption that just because the memo was pulled quickly it was because "The Republican Party" (so general, so assumptive) didn't approve overlooks the fact that they indicated the memo was pulled because it hadn't received "adequate review".

Yes. It was pulled because it hadn't received adequate review. From THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

The article says the memo was pulled by Republicans because the memo was pulled by Republicans.

The article ALSO says, if you want to take your partisan blinders off for a moment, that it took Republicans to publish a memo like this in the FIRST place, because Democrats are historically closer to Hollywood, and also notes that Republicans pulled out of SOPA before Democrats did.

There's plenty of criticism to go around, regardless of which particular granfalloon you personally identify with. Both major parties are responsible for the current copyright morass, whether we're talking about Sonny Bono or Chris Dodd.

First of all, I'm not American and I don't know much about US law.Would it be feasible to encourage / fund law professors to do a study on constitutionality of the copyright law in the US and then, if the results suggest that it isn't, push for reform with a grassroots campaign? I mean skip congressmen and senators as much as possible. Here where I live, if enough people sign a petition, they can get a referendum on something, and then the representatives have to vote on it. Passing such legislation is of course a different measure, but maybe with enough citizens supporting it...Ah, one can dream.

I smell a combination of policy trial balloon and loud hint to Hollywood that the GOP has noticed their lop$ided $upport for Dem's. High-stakes "fiscal cliff" negotiations are coming up, and Obama doesn't need donations to his 2016 campaign. Whatever is in the "Grand Bargain" bill that the White House and House Republicans agree to will be pretty much unalterable. So either the media plutocrats $plash ca$h fast into GOP coffers, or a sudden plot twist will dump them in Regretville.

The Republican Party will never change. It's the party of old, ignorant, white men and it's gonna stay that way. If the republicans want to be seen as the party of new ideas quashing a report like this is not the way to do it. It's the same old party of idiots, same as it always was, is, and will be.

Ignorant? old? idiots?

I'm pretty sure the old play-ground-saying of "takes one to know one" sums up your comments but someone else said it much more elegantly. just take a look at the Jcool post.

I mean using insults, obviously insulting someone with language like this, is worse then the party you are insulting.

I think there are Idea's with in the Republican party for change and prosperity, but they're not tried, and it becomes politically hard to sell something that is a radical change.

we can take a look at Ron Paul's debates for evidence of great ideas inside the GOP. Eliminate the Fed, reform Copyright law, leave the Internet open and free... Most of which is completely opposed by the Democrats as well as the entrenched republicans.

Ron Paul essentially isn't a Republican -- he's a "Libertarian" (which means "I don't like taxes but I do like drugs" for all intents and purposes). Considering Paul's delegates were forcibly stripped during the Republican National Convention so that he wouldn't be allowed to speak at all, it's pretty clear that any "evidence" Ron Paul provides of good ideas coming out of the GOP is utterly facile.

What's more, the ideas that Paul calls for are more of the same "Feed the rich and starve the poor" kinds of idiocy that we see out of the mainstream Republicans, just writ large. Eliminating the Fed and returning to the Gold Standard would cause deflationary pressure so significant that it would make the Great Depression look like a Kind of Bad Day. That's terrible news for everyone who has any kind of real debt (student loans, mortgage, car loans, etc), which is essentially the entire lower and middle classes. This is a radical idea, but it is not a good one.

Calling Republicans the party of "Old, white, ignorant" isn't an insult, it's a demographic reflection. The Old, the White and uneducated whites are the three demographics that went most heavily for Romney, and most heavily for Bush. The Republican Party, in this election alone gave us "The body has a way to shut that down", "Some girls rape easy", 47%, 9/9/9, Michelle Bachmann telling us that vaccines cause autism, a witch hunt against the Secretary of State's personal aid for being a secret muslim terrorist based only on the evidence that the woman in question was a muslim, Birth Certificate mania two years after the President's birth certificate was released publicly, Benghazi, "Socialism", "The UN is coming to take all our guns", "The President is using Delphi mind control drugs to turn the US into an agricultural commune" and countless others.

Trying to pretend that the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is just a mild issue of personal opinion, and that there aren't significant, fundamental differences between these two parties is idiotic. Yeah, a lot of people voted for Republicans. A lot of people are fucking morons. For reference, I voted for Bush in 2004 and McCain in 2008. Having a black dude in the Oval Office has made the Republican Party go from a bunch of cranky old white dudes to a group of people who are actively, batshit insane. Supporting this party simply cannot be rationalized in today's political landscape.

The reality is that, despite the seeming consensus of places like Ars and Reddit, the Republican party isn't a big homogeneous group of (insert derisive, possibly bigoted stereotype here). There are very large groups that differ from the general party position on "core" issues. This is not new, and isn't unique to the Republicans. In a two party system, this is reality, and painting them all with the same big brush may be convenient for your raging internet forum comment, but it's just intellectual laziness. Heck, even within the smaller movements, such as the Tea Party, people involved can have wildly disparate positions on many issues.

However, whether it's an age gap, as the author speculates, or money, or a simple reluctance to change, seeing some of these viewpoints represented on a leadership level is a challenge. (and again, not just for Republicans.)

I'm half Black and half Hispanic and people are always surprised to learn I'm a conservative. the age of many of these representatives is precisely why so many at the top need to be replaced with younger people who are familiar with the tech and the real issues at hand regarding legislation like the Protect IP Act, copy rights, and the patents. It's also been known for a LONG time that the longer these people are in DC the more corrupt they become. Many of these people have been there for decades.

The reality is that, despite the seeming consensus of places like Ars and Reddit, the Republican party isn't a big homogeneous group of (insert derisive, possibly bigoted stereotype here). There are very large groups that differ from the general party position on "core" issues. This is not new, and isn't unique to the Republicans. In a two party system, this is reality, and painting them all with the same big brush may be convenient for your raging internet forum comment, but it's just intellectual laziness. Heck, even within the smaller movements, such as the Tea Party, people involved can have wildly disparate positions on many issues.

However, whether it's an age gap, as the author speculates, or money, or a simple reluctance to change, seeing some of these viewpoints represented on a leadership level is a challenge. (and again, not just for Republicans.)

you nailed it. The Democrats have done a brilliant job at painting the entire GOP as the same, while hiding their own undesirable parts. Things are changing within the GOP, Obama's victory very well may have ushered in some major change within the party.

While both parties do a great job beating up on each other and selling some grade A BS, the Republicans haven't needed any help from the Dems painting themselves as out of touch on a surprising array of social and civil rights issues. I mean, how hard is it to not mention rape and abortion in the same sentence? Or to put forth a reasonable immigration plan? Or to not insinuate that most minorities are moochers? Or to see the writing on the wall with gay rights and start making overtures?

Don't get me wrong, the Dems idea of "freedom" can be pretty appalling to me and their lack of ability to spend within their means (good times or bad) is more than a little frustrating. But I don't blame the Dems for giving the GOP a bad name. I blame their public face: their candidates, their party leadership and those in the media that carry their water (Fox News, Rush, etc.). Your last sentence is one of my great hopes coming out of the last election.

But frankly, I don't think it is likely. Look at our current congress: where are the "blue dog" Dems? Where are the moderate Reps? Look what happened to the moderate Reps in the presidential primaries. Not that those centrists had a great track record of bucking lobbyists or special interests, but at least they were in the middle. They were willing to listen to the other side and cut a deal here and there. I really fear that the polarization of the GOP is a sign of a larger trend in our politics.

Add me to the pile of "I'd actually consider voting for the republicans if they backed copyright reform". I'd probably still vote against them because civil rights are good and theocratic thought bad, but I'd think about it.

Who was the last US president who wasn't a millionaire by the way? Could you imagine a president of the US living like this guy?

From what I observe of the US, your presidents need to be good looking and wealthy. They need to look like game show hosts, slick and with all the answers. It seems to be a feedback loop - voters respond to people who look good and speak clearly and the parties put people up who appeal to voters first and foremost.

Imagine the best presidents of history. They would not stand a chance in today's elections.

This reminds me of Farenheit 451. How one candidate was sent out looking like a pig (I can't remember the names off the top of my head, but it'll hit me later), and the other one looking like a movie star. When Montag asked what positions either men took on issues, no one knew. They only talked about how they looked.

At this point, I think we all need to start wondering if we're going to be the firestarters, or the rememberers. (If you don't get the reference, please read the book. It's a good book, and it'll shock you how close to the truth it is now)

I thought that the General Republican Theory was that government interfered with business when it limited profits, and assisted business when it increased them, leading to a desire for only laws that assist. I see this document as suggesting changes that would limit the profits of copyright holders, and when the senior Republicans who hold the GRT dear to their hearts found out about it, it had to go.

Down the road, I wonder if the next few waves of senior Republicans will include anybody who liked this kind of idea. Or if they liked it, they had to pretend not to to get to that senior level...

I applaud the report, and am half tempted to take it, print it and send it to all of my representatives...

It's amazing to see something that basically reflects the reality of what should happen. I'm sure industry groups will complain, but I would think it would be advantageous for them to support meaningful reform. I can't imagine it has made them any money to try sue the crap out of millions of users.

As an earlier commenter said, the two parties in the USA are long term coalitions, not parties in the European sense. While the coalitions last longer than those in Europe, individual legislators are not as tightly bound to the party's position on any particular issue or vote.

We all tend to notice the nutcases in the opposing coallition. Some of those on the Democrat side are appaling. I will never forgive the apologists for the Soviet Empire.

The evil religous fundamentalist meme has been going around since at least the '70s, when I first noticed it. It's bad that it got hung around the Republican neck. The loony pseudo Christians have no more control of the Republican party than the loony left has over the Democrats. They do furnish most of the volunteers for the ground game.

All groups practice varying degrees of mind control on their members (group think, repetition, and so on). Religous groups practice more of it, but so do sales organizations. The Democrats do it too. Belonging to an organized religion tends to immunize you to secular mind control.

As an earlier commenter said, the two parties in the USA are long term coalitions, not parties in the European sense. While the coalitions last longer than those in Europe, individual legislators are not as tightly bound to the party's position on any particular issue or vote.

We all tend to notice the nutcases in the opposing coallition. Some of those on the Democrat side are appaling. I will never forgive the apologists for the Soviet Empire.

The evil religous fundamentalist meme has been going around since at least the '70s, when I first noticed it. It's bad that it got hung around the Republican neck. The loony pseudo Christians have no more control of the Republican party than the loony left has over the Democrats. They do furnish most of the volunteers for the ground game.

All groups practice varying degrees of mind control on their members (group think, repetition, and so on). Religous groups practice more of it, but so do sales organizations. The Democrats do it too. Belonging to an organized religion tends to immunize you to secular mind control.

"He who believes in nothing will believe in anything."

I'm saying this as an actively and deeply religious person.

The world was not made in seven days. It is not six thousand years old. I could not be more sure of anything in my life.

Every single Presidential candidate from the Republican party (except John Huntsman) claimed that it was. To a person, they all claimed it. Young Earth Creationism, until the mid-1970's (which is when the Evangelical Church first became heavily involved in Politics under the leadership of folks like Pat Robertson -- the reason you saw the Republicans get saddled with the Religious Crazy label is because that's when they went to bed with Religious Crazies) was a fringe idea. No one seriously accepted it. Abortion was considered a sacred right for women (don't believe me? Look it up in the Republican Party Platforms of the 70's and 80's). So many of the wedge issues that define the Republican Party today were invented in the 1970's as part of what is known as the Southern Strategy. You seem to be wholly unaware of this, and it leaves you looking ignorant when you try and argue for an equivalency that doesn't exist.

Republicans are labeled Religious Crazy because they are. Arguing that this is some sort of smear campaign is like saying that I'm insulting my infant daughter by saying she smells after she poops. It's a statement of fact, not an insult.

So, rather than just saying "this is one viewpoint that might be considered" they pulled the memo risking the Streissand effect and now reassert the standard industry-paid-for dogma that the senior republicans are comfortable with because the lobbyist money that attracts is more important than actually doing something challenging like beginning an actual process of fundamental change. Entirely predictable on the part of a political party I'm afraid...

I don't want creationism taught in science class either, for both religous and scientific reasons. The two domains are not equivalent, and treating either by the rules of the other is a mistake. That said:

How does a politician's opinion on the age of the earth affect federal government policy? Why do you care what a particular federal politician believes?

Oh, that's right, they federalized education. I'm ashamed to admit that GWB spearheaded the effort. That's one problem with electing former governors. They tend to attack the wrong set of issues.

The problem isn't what any particular school board thinks should be taught in any particular district. It's the fact that control has been taken away from local school boards by the state and now federal governments.

The federal government wasn't intended to control local issues.

Everybody makes mistakes. When government screws up they do it for/to everybody in their jurisdiction. The bigger the jurisdiction the more people get burned.

Too many issues get federalized these days. If you support the stateists this trend will continue.

So, rather than just saying "this is one viewpoint that might be considered" they pulled the memo risking the Streissand effect and now reassert the standard industry-paid-for dogma that the senior republicans are comfortable with because the lobbyist money that attracts is more important than actually doing something challenging like beginning an actual process of fundamental change. Entirely predictable on the part of a political party I'm afraid...

Maybe that's the cunning plan. The RIAA and the MPAA plus the trial lawyers will never allow the Democrats to take a sensible position on copyright. This will hurt them in the long run.

I don't want creationism taught in science class either, for both religous and scientific reasons. The two domains are not equivalent, and treating either by the rules of the other is a mistake. That said:

How does a politician's opinion on the age of the earth affect federal government policy? Why do you care what a particular federal politician believes?

There is utility in considering whether a government official has the reasoning and critical thinking skills necessary to do a good job in office. Especially when they're on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Acceptance of evolution, one of the most successful, useful, and well-established of all scientific ideas, is a decent litmus test. And this isn't just a problem for "federal" politicians, this applies to local politics too. Your obsession with the issue of federal government isn't really appropriate for the issue you're responding to.

Quote:

The problem isn't what any particular school board thinks should be taught in any particular district.

Actually, that's a problem too. Because state and local governments cannot contravene the US Constitution or its Bill of Rights. Local school boards deciding to promote sectarian religious nonsense as a replacement for actual science is an infringement on the inalienable rights of everybody in the community.

In the interests of supporting our beleaguered friends in Hollywood; I, for one, would shell out actual money for footage of the reaction shots among MPAA and RIAA bagmen when they saw this memo go up...

The reality is that, despite the seeming consensus of places like Ars and Reddit, the Republican party isn't a big homogeneous group of (insert derisive, possibly bigoted stereotype here). There are very large groups that differ from the general party position on "core" issues. This is not new, and isn't unique to the Republicans. In a two party system, this is reality, and painting them all with the same big brush may be convenient for your raging internet forum comment, but it's just intellectual laziness. Heck, even within the smaller movements, such as the Tea Party, people involved can have wildly disparate positions on many issues.

However, whether it's an age gap, as the author speculates, or money, or a simple reluctance to change, seeing some of these viewpoints represented on a leadership level is a challenge. (and again, not just for Republicans.)

you nailed it. The Democrats have done a brilliant job at painting the entire GOP as the same, while hiding their own undesirable parts. Things are changing within the GOP, Obama's victory very well may have ushered in some major change within the party.

I think bigoted points of view of tea party , Sean Hannity and Bill O riely have a done a better job to pain that picture then the dems.

The report is incorrect in one important fact: Money given to scientific publishers through library subscription fees or paywalls does not go to the producers of the content.

Scientists and their institutions pay "page charges" to have the material published, they receive nothing in return. This is an extra "tax" on science, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) to each institution. It's been a while since I had anything published, but I remember page charges of between $50 and $200 PER PAGE to have a paper published. THEN the institution has to turn around and pay the journal fee to get the journal back for their library. That can be tens of thousands per year.

This is why you should be following the "open sourc science " and "open journal" movements such as http://arxiv.org/

bwake: handing primary education totally to municipalities is a terrible idea. The idea that a local school board could, for instance, teach creationism in place of evolution would be a grave injustice to the children of that school. It would put them behind peers from their state and across the nation, not to mention globally.

Which is my primary objection to the idea of "leaving it to the states" or worse, "leaving it to the community." To a great extent, we succeed and fail as a country. When, say, Illinois falls behind in key metrics (employment rates, education, infant mortality, etc.), that will have effects on the wider economy. More, I personally feel there is an ethical obligation to help that failing state become healthier, better educated and even richer.

We will never make every pocket of America rich, healthy and well educated. But at the same time, why should we allow a hand full of local nut jobs take over a government and force their religion and ideals on a generation of young Americans to the detriment of their community, their state and the entire nation? States rights must end somewhere, for the good of us all.

But such a change would force me to reconsider. Social issues are important, but rarely legislated. They are mostly payed lip service to for the purposes of drumming up votes. Substantive copyright reform might be worth holding my nose and giving a tacit pass to a party with a long history of racism, sexism, and homophobia.

It's funny how things change, isn't it? 150 years ago, more or less, Abraham Lincoln was prepared to take the US to war to get slavery banned. And he was a Republican, most of the slave owners being Democrats. It seems to me (a non-USian) that the only true immutable in American politics is the two party system...